Results of Western intervention in Libya


Results of Western intervention in Libya

 

A picture taken on October 22, 2014 in Libya’s Benghazi shows smoke billowing from buildings after the Libyan air force, loyal to former general Khalifa Haftar, pounded the buildings reported to be used for storing ammunition belonging to Ansar al-Sharia.

A picture taken on October 22, 2014 in Libya’s Benghazi shows smoke billowing from buildings after the Libyan air force, loyal to former general Khalifa Haftar, pounded the buildings reported to be used for storing ammunition belonging to Ansar al-Sharia.

By Abayomi Azikiwe

presstv

 

On October 20, 2011, the leader of the North African state of Libya was brutally assassinated in the city of Sirte. Col. Muammar Gaddafi had been leading a struggle to defend his country from a war of regime-change coordinated and financed by the United States and NATO.

Since the overthrow of the Jamahiriya system of government in Libya, the social conditions prevailing inside the country are by no means stable. Various factions, most of which were utilized as ground troops in the Pentagon-NATO aerial war between March 19 and Oct. 31 of 2011, remained locked in a mortal conflict for control over the oil-rich state.

Conflicting sources of political power backed up by armed militias exist in the two largest cities of Tripoli, the capital, and Benghazi, in the east, where the counter-revolution against Gaddafi began. Areas in the south of the country have armed themselves against the US-installed regimes in Tripoli and Benghazi often in sympathy with the previous system under the Jamahiriya.

The two regional states that participated in the imperialist-engineered war against Libya, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have been carrying out periodic airstrikes against alleged “Islamist” strongholds in various locations in the east and west. Also renegade former Gen. Khalifa Hefter, a longtime Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) asset, has mounted a bid for power utilizing sophisticated weapons and airstrikes.

Oil production rising despite internal conflict

For several months during 2014, oil production in Libya was down considerably. Conflicts between various labor organizations in addition to clashes among the militias resulted in the decline of barrels-per-day extraction to almost nil.
A dispute over who could actually sell Libyan oil on the international market was eventually addressed by the US when it sent a naval warship to reclaim cargo traded by interests inside the country who were not endorsed by Washington. Subsequent efforts aimed at the resolution of the disagreements have still not cleared the way for a consistent boost in production.
Unrest has erupted again surrounding which political group claiming authority in Libya would control the proceeds from oil sales. Both the parties controlling the capital of Tripoli, who are often labeled as “Islamists,” and the “government in exile” in the eastern city of Tobruk say they are entitled to the revenue generated from the trade in oil.
With the decline in prices on the global market during October, the situation involving the struggle over the control of oil in Libya prompted the attention of the Wall Street Journal. Efforts by five Western countries designated by the United Nations to reach a political settlement in the Libyan quagmire has failed, and consequently, the major imperialist powers are concerned about the supply of oil and the role of Libya in the process.

“In a joint statement late Saturday, France, Italy, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. said they supported the U.N.-sponsored peace talks and a cessation of hostilities,” noted the Wall Street Journal. “The five governments condemned the violence by Islamist group Ansar al-Shariah, voiced concern about the attacks of the renegade general and said they were ready to sanction those threatening Libya’s security.” (Oct. 19)

This same article went on to point out that “Libya is normally one of Europe’s largest oil suppliers, but disruptions since the fall of strongman Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 have reduced its contribution to the continent’s oil supply.” Therefore, even the publication of the international finance capital has to openly acknowledge that the Pentagon-NATO policy of regime-change in Libya has disrupted oil supplies to the European continent.

The Libya Dawn group, which is contesting control of the state with the ostensible moderate group led by Prime Minister Abdullah al-Thani, who called themselves the House of Representatives, sent their own oil minister, Mashallah al-Zawie, to Turkey to participate in an industry conference held in Istanbul. The rival group headed by al-Thani based in Tobruk dismissed the Central Bank director Sadiq Kabir and claims they have control of the revenue from oil sales.

Nonetheless, the Wall Street Journal reports that “officials at NOC (the state-owned National Oil Co.) and at the central bank subsidiary which receives payments from oil buyers said revenues had continued to flow to its Tripoli-based accounts. Mr. al-Kabir also remains in office, they said.”

Such confusion over which entity controls Libyan oil could very well hamper the country’s future production and exports projections. Libyan oil officials say production is at 850,000 barrels a day, marking an increase of 40,000 barrels compared with earlier in October, suggesting that some facilities have boosted their output. In contrast, operations at oil fields in eastern Libya have been interrupted by labor unrest led by workers seeking jobs at the facilities.

Imperialists continue proxy war in Libya

The present situation in Libya is the direct result of the war of regime-change led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Pentagon and NATO during 2011. US policy is designed to overthrow all of the sovereign and anti-imperialist governments throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Consequently, the outcome of the current situation in the regions of North Africa and the Middle East will be critical in the future course of imperialist militarism worldwide. Obviously, these policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Syria and Libya have prompted massive destabilization of these societies, including the vast increase in the number of internally displaced persons and refugees.
Libya, which under the years of the Jamahiriya-Gaddafi rule was the most prosperous state in Africa, is now a major source of instability in the region. The response of aerial bombardments from Egypt and the UAE will only further the generalized sense of lawlessness and terror.
Only the Libyan people themselves, united around a political program of national unity, and genuine sovereignty will be able to reverse the current malaise. The plans suggested involving the direct intervention of thousands of NATO troops to Libya under the rubric of the United Nations would eventually result in greater anti-Western sentiments already prevalent throughout the country.
What the role of the US in Libya has proven is that Washington and Wall Street have no rational policy towards Africa and the Middle East. Their interventionist posture will only breed more anti-US consciousness and mass resistance to imperialist control.
AA/HJL

About these ads

US aid worker beheading video a set-up?


US aid worker beheading video a set-up?

fake-beheading

 

|

 Watch the interview at Press TV

fake-beheadingAn American analyst says the video showing the murder of American aid worker Peter (Abdul-Rahman) Kassig “seems to have been set-up” in line with the “Islamophobic propaganda” behind the ISIL terrorist group.

In an interview with Press TV on Monday, Dr. Kevin Barrett, founding member of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance, discussed the reasons behind the Islamophobic nature of ISIL’s media coverage and how it is “designed” as an excuse for further intervention in the region.

“There have been a couple of previous beheadings which appear to have been actually staged, or photoshopped, so again it’s hard to tell what kind of publicity stunt this is, whether it’s even another real beheading or another staged one, or who knows?” Barrett asked.

The video was definitely “a publicity stunt designed to create the impression that there is a huge threat to America that has to be met with by LOTS OF MONEY for the military, intervention in the Middle East and bombing Syria,” he said.

The US bombs in Syria and Iraq have not really been “directed in the most strategic way towards targeting ISIL, but rather towards destroying the infrastructure of Syria,” he added.

Barrett said the “Islamic State” is not Islamic, and only acts as a “false-flag excuse” for the Western powers that want to “demonize” Islam.

“This ISIL group is a false-flag group. It’s not an Islamic radical group. It’s taken up where al-Qaeda left off, al-Qaeda being so heavily infiltrated by Western intelligence agencies that it was turned against Muslims, and against anti-Imperialists. It was turned into essentially a false-flag excuse for Western war on Islam and ISIL has been that from the very beginning.”

Barrett noted that even al-Qaeda dismisses the Islamic nature of ISIL Takfiris and the “supposed teaming up” between al-Qaeda and ISIL in Syria is “all theater.”

“What it is really about is destabilizing the region, providing an excuse for intervention and demonizing Islam,” he said.

“As an American Muslim, I am getting tired of this endless parade of Islamophobic propaganda that we are getting in our American media, with these beheadings. They [media] never show us the beheadings in Saudi Arabia, which happen at a pretty regular basis in ‘Chop-Chop Square’ in Riyadh, we never see those. We only see these dubious ISIL beheadings, which are designed to make Americans think that this is Islam.”

ISIL is not really Islamic, he continued. “They put the name Islamic State in there, just to provide more propaganda effect to make Americans and Westerners hate Islam.”

US President Barack Obama on Sunday confirmed the assassination of Kassig, describing his beheading at the hands of the ISIL terrorist group as “pure evil.”

“ISIL’s actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own,” Obama said in a statement.

Barrett said that he would agree with what Obama said about the faith that Abdul-Rahman belonged to.

“But I would ask president Obama to go one step further and to reveal the real agenda behind ISIL and to change America’s Middle East policies and turn them away from this enslavement to Zionist expansionism and constant intervention, and step back to become an honest broker helping to maintain peace and stability in the region.”

Pictures: Daash review and declares “the state of Tripoli is under Isis”


Pictures: Daash review and declares “the state of Tripoli is under Isis”

Isis in Tripoli, who are they? America's REBELS

Isis in Tripoli, who are they? America’s REBELS

ISIS IN TRIPOLI

ISIS IN TRIPOLI

ISIS IN TRIPOLI

ISIS IN TRIPOLI

GROUPED ALL TOGETHER MAKING THE SIGN OF THE 3 (666)

GROUPED ALL TOGETHER MAKING THE SIGN OF THE 3 (666)

Isis with their sign of 666

Isis with their sign of 666

EDITOR’S NOTE:

Check the above picture carefully you can distinguish from their faces that they are foreigners maybe some from Europe or America, check their artillery its brand new, where did they find the money? Check the backpack writes off all American to me.. check their signature the sign of 666 now I am wondering they say they are Islamists (& we believe them) and use the sign of the NWO?  Dear readers you have to ask yourselves who benefits from these extremists? Once you have answered the question maybe you will wake up and see what your government is doing and maybe just maybe you will get out of your comfort zone and start protesting peacefully because what came to Libya will come to Europe and to America its the only way they corporate governance can control you.  Please wake up, take action, do something before its too late.

Ruseifa 19/11/2014 – published Forums jihadist media platform of organizing a network that Daash  *****(is now CALLED ISIS working together with the American government and of course the American Ambassador Deborah Jones where she resides in Malta. All finances and arming these terror group is made by the USA VIA TURKEY/QATAR/SAUDI ARABIA. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW A BUNCH OF RICH PSYCHOPATHS RUIN LIBYA AND THE REST OF THE ARAB COUNTRIES? ARE WE GOING TO STAY COMFORTABLE IN OUR HOMES WATCH THE NEWS FROM OUR SOFAS, NOD OUR HEADS AND SAY “WOW THIS IS TERRIBLE, POOR PEOPLE WHAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO BECOME A WESTERN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY?” OR ARE WE GOING TO GET OUT FROM OUR COMFORT ZONE AND START A PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENTS TELLING THEM WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS DEADLY WRONG) on the internet, on Wednesday, pictures taken in the capital of Tripoli to what it called “the state of Tripoli”, the pictures show the spread of the organization in neighborhoods of the capital, Tripoli.

 

Libya’s Lesson for Iran: Beware of Rapprochement


Libya’s Lesson for Iran: Beware of Rapprochement

 

By Dan Glazebrook

Britain and the US used the so-called “rapprochement” with Gaddafi’s Libya to cultivate a fifth column and prepare the ground for war

Britain and the US used the so-called “rapprochement” with Gaddafi’s Libya to cultivate a fifth column and prepare the ground for war

Three years ago, in late October 2011, the world witnessed the final defeat of the Libyan Jamahiriya – the name by which the Libyan state was known until overthrown in 2011, meaning literally the “state of the masses” – in the face of a massive onslaught from NATO, its regional allies and local collaborators.

It took seven eight months for the world’s most powerful military alliance – with a combined military spending of just under $1 trillion per year – to fully destroy the Jamahiriya (a state with a population the size of Wales) and it took a joint British-French-Qatari special-forces operation to finally WIN control of the capital. In total, 10,000 strike sorties were rained down on Libya, tens of thousands killed and injured, and the country left a battleground for hundreds of warring factions, armed to the teeth with weapons, either looted from state armouries or provided directly by NATO and its allies. Britain, France and the US had led a war which had effectively transformed a peaceful, prosperous African country into a textbook example of a “failed state.”

Yet the common image of Libya in the months and years leading up to the invasion was that of a state that had “come in from the cold” and was now enjoying friendly relations with the West. Tony Blair’s famous embrace of Gaddafi in his tent in 2004 was said to have ushered in a new period of “rapprochement” with Western companies rushing to do business in the oil-rich African state, and Gaddafi’s abandonment of a nuclear deterrent apparently indicative of the new spirit of trust and cooperation.

Yet this image was largely a myth. Yes, sanctions were lifted and diplomatic relations restored; but this did not represent any newfound trust and friendship. Gaddafi himself never changed his opinion that the forces of old and new colonialism remained bitter enemies of African unity and independence, and for their part, the US, Britain and France continued to resent the assertiveness and independence of Libyan foreign policy under Gaddafi’s leadership. The African Oil Policy Initiative Group (AOPIG) – an elite US think tank comprising congressmen, military officers and energy industry lobbyists – warned in 2002 that the influence of “adversaries such as Libya” would only grow unless the US significantly increased its military presence on the continent. Yet, despite “rapprochement,” Gaddafi remained a staunch opponent of such a presence, as noted with anxiety in frequent diplomatic cables from the US Embassy. One, for example, from 2009, noted that “the presence of non-African military elements in Libya or elsewhere on the continent” was almost a “neuralgic issue” for Gaddafi. Another cable from 2008 quoted a pro-Western Libyan government official as saying that “there will be no real economic or political reform in Libya until al-Gaddafi passes from the political scene” which would “not happen while Gaddafi is alive,” hardly the image of a man bending to the will of the West. Gaddafi had clearly not been moved by the flattery towards Libya (or “appropriate deference” as another US Embassy cable put it) that was much in evidence during the period of “rapprochement.” Indeed, at the Arab League summit in March 2008, he warned the assembled heads of state that, following the execution of Saddam Hussein, a former “close friend” of the US, “in the future, it’s going to be your turn too…Even you, the friends of America – no, I will say we, we the friends of America – America may approve of our hanging one day.”

So much for a new period of trust and co-operation. Whilst business deals were being signed, Gaddafi remained implacably opposed to the US and European military presence on the continent (as well as leading the fight to reduce their economic presence) and understood well that this might cost him his life. The US too understood this, and despite their outward flattery, behind the scenes were worried and resentful.

Thus, the so-called rapprochement period was anything but. The US continued to remain hostile to the independent spirit of Libya – as evidenced most obviously by Gaddafi’s hostility to the presence of US and European military forces in Africa – and it now seems that they and the British used this period to prepare the ground for the war that eventually took place in 2011.

The US, for example, used their newfound access to Libyan officials to cultivate relations with those who would become their key local allies during the war. Leaked diplomatic cables show that pro-Western Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil arranged covert meetings between US and Libyan government officials that bypassed the usual official channels and were therefore “under the radar” of the foreign ministry and central government. He was also able to speed up the prisoner release programme that led to the release of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group insurgents who ultimately acted as NATO’s shock troops during the 2011 war. The head of the LIFG – al-Qaeda’s FRANCHISE in Libya – eventually became head of Tripoli’s military council, whilst Abdul-Jalil himself became head of the “Transitional National Council,” that was installed by NATO following the fall of the Jamahiriya.

Another key figure groomed by the US in the years preceding the invasion, was Mahmoud Jibril, head of the National Economic Development Board from 2007, who arranged six US training programmes for Libyan diplomats, many of whom subsequently resigned and sided with the US and Britain once the rebellion and invasion got underway.

Finally, the security and intelligence co-operation that was an element of the “rapprochement” period was used to provide the CIA and MI6 with an unprecedented level of information about both Libyan security forces and opposition elements they could cultivate that would prove invaluable for the conduct of the war.

Thus rapprochement, whilst appearing to be an improvement in relations, may actually be a “long game” to lay the groundwork for naked aggression, by building up intelligence and sounding out possible collaborators, effectively building up a fifth column within the state itself. This is what the neo-conservatives in the US Congress opposing Obama’s “thaw” in Iranian relations apparently fail to understand. Thankfully, it is likely that the Iranians understand it perfectly well.

 - Dan Glazebrook is a political writer specialising in Western foreign policy. He is author of Divide and Ruin: The West’s Imperial Strategy in an Age of Crisis.

Photo: Moamer Gaddafi addresses delegates during the 12th African Union summit at the United Nations Headquarters in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa on 4 Feb, 2009 (AFP)

How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS


How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS

 

Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.

The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.

The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.

The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, “by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the LAWYERS said the U.S. would be in violation.”

During the 1970′s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also OPENLY supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda.

Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980′s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the RUSSIANS in Afghanistan.

America’s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy.

The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom.

In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization’s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein’s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast UNEMPLOYMENT in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni’s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni’s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria.

There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are OPENLYbrandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.

America’s Middle East policy revolves around oil and Israel. The invasion of Iraq has partially satisfied Washington’s thirst for oil, but ongoing air strikes in Syria and economic sanctions on Iran have everything to do with Israel. The goal is to deprive Israel’s neighboring enemies, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestine’s Hamas, of crucial Syrian and Iranian support.

ISIS is not merely an instrument of terror used by America to topple the Syrian government; it is also used to put pressure on Iran.

The last time Iran invaded another nation was in 1738. Since independence in 1776, the U.S. has been engaged in over 53 military invasions and expeditions. Despite what the Western media’s war cries would have you believe, Iran is clearly not the threat to regional security, Washington is. An Intelligence Report published in 2012, endorsed by all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies, confirms that Iran ended its nuclear weapons PROGRAM in 2003. Truth is, any Iranian nuclear ambition, real or imagined, is as a result of American hostility towards Iran, and not the other way around.

America is using ISIS in three ways: to attack its enemies in the Middle East, to serve as a pretext for U.S. military intervention abroad, and at home to foment a manufactured domestic threat, used to justify the unprecedented expansion of invasive domestic surveillance.

By rapidly increasing both government secrecy and surveillance, Mr. Obama’s government is increasing its power to watch its citizens, while diminishing its citizens’ power to watch their government. Terrorism is an excuse to justify mass surveillance, in preparation for mass revolt.

The so-called “War on Terror” should be seen for what it really is: a pretext for maintaining a dangerously oversized U.S. military. The two most powerful groups in the U.S. foreign policy establishment are the Israel lobby, which directs U.S. Middle East policy, and the Military-Industrial-Complex, which profits from the former group’s actions. Since George W. Bush declared the “War on Terror” in October 2001, it has cost the American taxpayer approximately 6.6 trillion dollars and thousands of fallen sons and daughters; but, the wars have also raked in billions of dollars for Washington’s military elite.

In fact, more than seventy American companies and individuals have won up to $27 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last three years, according to a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity. According to the study, nearly 75 per cent of these private companies had EMPLOYEES or board members, who either served in, or had close ties to, the executive branch of the Republican and Democratic administrations, members of Congress, or the highest levels of the military.

In 1997, a U.S. Department of Defense REPORT stated, “the data show a strong correlation between U.S. involvement abroad and an increase in terrorist attacks against the U.S.” Truth is, the only way America can win the “War On Terror” is if it stops giving terrorists the motivation and the resources to attack America. Terrorism is the symptom; American imperialism in the Middle East is the cancer. Put simply, the War on Terror is terrorism; only, it is conducted on a much larger scale by people with jets and missiles.

Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University.